Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

National air wars heat up in Mass. Senate special

One week before Massachusetts voters head to the polls to choose a replacement for the late Ted Kennedy, a bevy of national groups are flooding the state's television airwaves.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is spending more than a half million dollars on ads while the Service Employees International Union, one of the most politically active members of the labor coalition, has also bought ad time in support of state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D).

On the other side of the ledger, the conservative American Future Fund has been up with an ad bashing Coakley on taxes for the past few days while the Chamber of Commerce and the National Republican Trust PAC are buying ad time to boost state Sen. Scott Brown's (R) candidacy.

The attention now being paid to the race suggests two things: the contest, once expected to be a walk in the park for Coakley, has tightened considerably, and no less than the fate of the health care bill is at stake.

But, the level of activity from Democrats in the past 24 hours -- the ad buy by the DSCC, the decision to send two senior-level staff to the state and a series of fundraising emails from Democratic figures from President Barack Obama to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry -- suggest that the party is very concerned about the contest.

Democrats, privately, continue to insist that the spending on the race is out of an abundance of caution -- knowing that Republicans will seek to spin even a close loss by Brown as a win because of the strongly Democratic nature of the Bay State.

And, given that Coakley represents the critical 60th vote for the President's health care bill, no level of caution is enough.

Strategists on both sides concede that a victory by Brown next Tuesday would drastically reshape the calculus of the health care debate, forcing Senate Democrats and the White House to scramble to find another vote to allow them to bring the measure to the floor.

Interim Sen. Paul Kirk, a Democrat, has said he will vote for the health care bill no matter the outcome of the special election next Tuesday but from a practical political perspective it's almost impossible to believe that such a vote would occur without Brown being sworn in. Republicans, already deeply unhappy about the health care bill, would almost certainly cry foul and Democrats -- including embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) -- might not be willing to go down such a partisan road in an election year.

"Scott Brown is in a pitched battle against Democrat corruption and dirty tactics and is within inches of becoming the crucial 41st vote to kill the Health Care Bill," said Trust PAC executive director Scott Wheeler in announcing the group's endorsement of Brown.

It remains to be seen what the cumulative effect of all the ad spending in the final week of the contest will be. If voters, not accustomed to a full-blown campaign ten months before election day, tune out all of the back and forth, Coakley should win solely on her demographic edge in the state. If the ads being launched by conservatives can sway independent/unaffiliated voters who are already unhappy with the status quo in Washington, Brown could have a fighting chance.

the polling I have seen shows Coakly of Brown ahead anywhere from 9.5% to 15% way beyond the margin of error. Go ahead and knock yourself out if you want to delude yourself into believing there is an upset in the works. Personally I am more interested in the Fla Crist race where Rubio has closed to within single digits. Your chances of winning next week in Mass are equal to a D Senate vicory in Miss.; aint going to happen.

Get it passed, then fix it. Take out the concessions to Republicans, restore the public option, get medical care for everyone as a right, and watch angry conservatives struggle to find advantage.

------------------------------

Listen to this - this poster is saying, pass a flawed bill, and then hope that a future Congress can put together the votes for MASSIVE TAX INCREASES to keep the finances from creating MASSIVE DEBT.

Then - this poster is saying - take out the concessions to the Republicans - and then blame the Republicans for not being bipartisan.

The whole idea among the democrats that they are going to pass a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAM - and somehow that is going to lead to an electorial windfall for them is silly.

First, massive government programs need bipartisan support over decades in order to survive - if your intention is to slam the program over the heads of the other party in every election, the program will never survive.

Besides, your motives are suspect, and the public knows that. You are being nothing but partisan, and no one likes that.

One thing the naysayers never get around to mentioning... the health care reform is a massive jobs program, especially if passed with a public option. Not just more employment in medicine but major
relief to small business owners, reduction in red tape operations, lower absenteeism, one benefit after another.

Get it passed, then fix it. Take out the concessions to Republicans, restore the public option, get medical care for everyone as a right, and watch angry conservatives struggle to find advantage.

One thing the naysayers never get around to mentioning... the health care reform is a massive jobs program, especially if passed with a public option. Not just more employment in medicine but major
relief to small business owners, reduction in red tape operations, lower absenteeism, one benefit after another.

Get it passed, then fix it. Take out the concessions to Republicans, restore the public option, get medical care for everyone as a right, and watch angry conservatives struggle to find advantage.

Once people start campaigning in earnest come about September, things will change. Right now nobody, including me, knows exactly what the health care bill will do. Nobody knows exactly just how obstructionist the republicans have been and nobody knows how the war will look 10 months from now. My guess is that when all is explained to the electorate, things will change for the Democrats who could be returned even or with a slightly bigger majority. Do not forget that a year ago people predicted that the Dems would have 64 seats in the Senate and close to 300 in the house after 2010. Nothing good has changed things for the Republicans so this is still most likely to happen.

why would anyone want to do that? Republicans have no ideas and they want the country to fail

Posted by: Noacoler | January 12, 2010 11:10 PM | Report abuse

*******************
*******************
Nobody's voting for the Dumbocrats. All the left wing pinko liberal Marxist Maoist Communist Dumbocrats want to do is humiliate America and bankrupt America with Obozocare.

12barblues - do the Ds have a fighting chance to win some R vacancies? Gregg and Voinovich retiring come to mind.

If the unemployment picture turns around, I think the Ds might hold their number by picking up as many seats as they lose. If it gets worse, they will probably lose more than 4 net seats, but no more than six.

The fear and anxiety about change [the extension of health insurance to almost all and the reform of insurance practices] might dissipate and become a positive, as well, but the unemployment number is the critical one, IMO.

I do think the polls will follow the economy, which is picking up if the global stock markets mean anything.

My personal bet on healthcare is that we have seen the lowest number in its popularity. Some of the displeasure comes from the left (estimated to be about 15 points), and I'm betting that after passage, the disgruntled left will gradually warm up to it. Even if they don't, the far left isn't going to vote Repub anyway, they'll stay home first.

Fiscal responsibility has not been the hallmark of the American people - we have been buying into the "Free Lunch" movement for years. Ds seem to have moved to the perspective that deficits are good for recessions, but surpluses are good during high times.

==

I wouldn't say that deficits are good, but running up deficits that can be repaid later is preferable to a deep recession, much less a depression. I think that Republicans are acting like fatantics on the issue, but then they seem to regard lowering taxes as the answer to absolutely everything.

Nice to see free lunch applied where it belongs, but it's still way overdue fir retirement as a hotbutton phrase.

Americans need civic education. We've had too many appeals
to greed and impatience since 1979 to vote responsibly.

Fiscal responsibility has not been the hallmark of the American people - we have been buying into the "Free Lunch" movement for years. Ds seem to have moved to the perspective that deficits are good for recessions, but surpluses are good during high times.

==

I wouldn't say that deficits are good, but running up deficits that can be repaid later is preferable to a deep recession, much less a depression. I think that Republicans are acting like fatantics on the issue, but then they seem to regard lowering taxes as the answer to absolutely everything.

Nice to see free lunch applied where it belongs, but it's still way overdue fir retirement as a hotbutton phrase.

Americans need civic education. We've had too many appeals
to greed and impatience since 1979 to vote responsibly.

12barblues - do the Ds have a fighting chance to win some R vacancies? Gregg and Voinovich retiring come to mind.

If the unemployment picture turns around, I think the Ds might hold their number by picking up as many seats as they lose. If it gets worse, they will probably lose more than 4 net seats, but no more than six.

The fear and anxiety about change [the extension of health insurance to almost all and the reform of insurance practices] might dissipate and become a positive, as well, but the unemployment number is the critical one, IMO.

"... the conservative American Future Fund has been up with an ad bashing Coakley on taxes..."

Will this "one trick pony" continue to attract undecided voters? Are TEA people really a majority?

Fiscal responsibility has not been the hallmark of the American people - we have been buying into the "Free Lunch" movement for years. Ds seem to have moved to the perspective that deficits are good for recessions, but surpluses are good during high times.
That seems realistic to me.

That will mean more taxes, eventually, if Ds are serious about it. Rs are apparently gambling on talking points drowning out even their own common sense, as they once more yell Taxed Enough Already.

Sen. Gregg[R] said this morning that he knows that taxes must go up when we come out of recession. He and Sen. Conrad [D] have posed a commission modeled somewhat after the base closure commission idea to take on the structural budget problems that Congress simply has not and will not, D or R. I linked to it earlier and was criticized for suggesting that such a scheme might work. I no longer have the link handy; sorry.

If MA votes for the R based on the Free Lunch promise of no taxes, then the voters are to blame - they should know better, by now.

I am not asking anyone who does not agree with JakeD's strongly asserted positions and inflammatory remarks to agree with them or to ignore them. I am respectfully requesting only that you rise above the temptation to preface every retort with Dan Ackroyd's ad hominem attack: "Jane, you ignorant sl-t".

==

if Jake is 77 then he spent most of his life in a coma. In his ability to form an argument, in his temperament, in the contemporary tics of his writing, in his emotionalism, in the shallowness of his arguments, in his puerile personalization of arguments, in short in everything about his writing, he comes across as an adolescent.

Maybe someone else who once posted here was a law grad, but the only legalese Jake ever posted was the one word arguendi, and that only after you used it. I'm a student of writing and its change
over time and I say with conviction that Jake is no older than 25, probably more like 17.

Just putting this out there for reaction: seems to me that the Dems will probably lose a minimum of 2 senate seats and a maximum of six (outside possibility). Loss of ND and NV look probable, based on today's polls. Any reactions?

The message board (like a blog but where participants can start threads) where I cut my teeth and suffered the most damage the site owner was believed to be trolling his own board. Maybe for ad revenue, maybe for the fun of it.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 12, 2010 10:36 PM
----------------------
Well, it's good to know that I'm talking to the head poobah :-) No, it was Real Clear Politics. I just had to get myself away from wasting time "debating", but actually we were all just angry (and I'm including myself in that). I just won't destroy my own soul or participate in destroying anyone else's either, by using scorched earth rhetoric.

Massachusetts: Coakley = more of the same;
she's in bed with the lobbyists, who recently paid $10,000 ea. for her campaign.
The rest of the country is depending on the wonderfurl people of Massachusetts to Vote For Brown.

After marth win an the dem's retain their sixty vote margain in the U.S. SENATE then i personaly want to see them use their majority to ram the health care public option through for the betterment of the american working class familys in this country an then tell the likes of the blue dogs to kiss off an for the to quit siding with the republicans an the insurance industry in this country an either become real yellow dogs dems or get out of the way. i have try my best to see thing throught the eyes of the blue dogs but i just can't go their as that they are just to close to the republican party ways for my personal liking thank you

I haven't really weighed in on the Trent Lott vs Harry Reid discussion. I think it's a pretty poor comparison. Lott was advocating racist policy. (Some may argue that wasn't his intent, but rather to honor an old Senator.) Reid was making an observation using the most dumb*ss language possible. Should any one have been forced out? I dunno, but I can promise if Democrats had any say in who the Senate majority leader was, then Lott would have been forced out long before.

I think a better example was George Bush trying to explain one day how black people have much shorter lifespans than whites. It made a small uproar at the time, but is a true fact. Perhaps said in a poorly manner (or maybe not. I don't remember the wording).

Reid did mention a "negro dialect" which is a slur. Perhaps a small one, perhaps a big one. I'll let the individual choose his own indignation level. But it does reflect a large racial double standard. Bush absolutely slaughtered the English language as President. Just terrible. However, this was widely seen as an asset for him. He could talk like a regular guy whatever that means. It was his "white dialect" that made him successful at some level. Black politicians don't have that luxury. You think we ever elect a President who speaks in ebonics? Of course not and nor should we. However, we shouldn't be electing Presidents who speak like Bush either. Reid did use somewhat of a slur, but he also pointed out a truth as to how racial inequality exists in this country. To Reid, Obama was a "good" type of negro. And Reid was pilloried for saying it. However, the nation as a whole thinks it and behaved accordingly on election day.

Thanks for the backstory. I'll read and learn in the days to come. One reason I'm here is that I got sick of another forum (am I allowed to mention their name?) because it was dominated by a little gang of posters who just waited for some poor newbie to drop in, and then they pulled out all the guns. Then, they would hi5 each other.

And if that wasn't bad enough, the rest of the time when no victim presented himself, all the talk was about the imminent end of civilization due to Obama's evil doings.

So, I thought, what the heck? Maybe they know of some good shorts in the stock market. So I asked. Oh, no! Not a single investing idea in the crowd, not equities, not bonds, not currencies nor commodities. Well, people who don't put their money where their mouth is, don't actually believe what they are saying.

Can't say I share your respect fir mark's view, I respect him but his defense of JakeD is just starry-eyed. As though talking about debate in general and refusing to recgnize that some peolple aren't sincere or honest. And I am SO tired of KBH and fiscal responsibility.

As for Jake's immunity to moderation, it's inescapable that CC is not being candid with us. Hit counts? Ideological sympathy? Unknown, but brazen.

Anyway, now the posters I come here to read are bailing from the blog. The trolls like Jake and his 37th alterego are driving them off and crowing about it. The place is now underwater with slimey goober trolls and Cillizza seems to like it that way. Six Harry Reid thread just to attract them. The respect I had for him from the campaign has evaporated.

What is this weird phenomenon among Republicans in regarding an election loss short of a total
route as a victory? Hoffman's loss is regarded as a win, a formula to be repeated; there is a lit of talk about a Brown loss in MA by less than 15 points as a win too.

Make no mistake, GOP self-deception is a win for the nation as it hampers their ability to work effectively, bur it seems more than a little bizarre.

"I'm new here, DDAWD, so I'm taking everyone at "face" value (that's a pretty funny concept on a comments thread!)

Posted by: 12BarBlues"

That's fine. I can provide a little backstory. I forget exactly what he was talking about, but he comes up on the board saying Barack HUSSEIN Obama this, Barack HUSSEIN Obama that, you know he wants to incite racially motivated fear or whatever. Not sure a WaPo message board is the best place, but whatever; intent is intent. He then starts filling up every comments section with assertions that Obama isn't born in the US and he hasn't shown his birth certificate. Eventually people start ignoring him, so he turns up the racist rhetoric even further. He makes jokes about how Obama is replacing the easter egg hunt with a watermelon roll. He says that interracial datinv is deviant behavior. Jokes about Obama getting assassinated at rallies and getting grenades thrown at him. His support of Trent Lott is pretty mild in that regard, actually.

If Mark in Austin wanted to convince me that there's no such thing as gravity, he's one of the few people on this board who would be capable of convincing me. By the same token, if he wanted to convince me that jaked isn't some seventeen year old, but is rather a 75 year old lawyer, then I might be convinced. But, you know, I need some good proof. If I have more legal knowledge and a better grasp of English than jaked, that's really not a good start.

Mark, your defense of JakeD is an insult to the readers' intelligence. You aren't talking about someone who comes here with opinions incongruent with the majority here but about someone who lies constantly, who strives to provoke and disrupt, who openly enjoys disrupting conversation. This blog would be an indisputanly better place if he went away.

His claims of age and education are lies. Period. He cannot even put together a simple syllogism, he knows nothing about science or logic, and he spends more time antagonizing other postersthan anything g else.

When we disagree we should do so courteously, but with Jake it's not about disagreement. He comes here to disrupt, not to
present a point of view. Why defend him? He'd much rather engage in fights. Trolling is his life. Such as it is.

Do we all realize that the Reid uproar will be part of the Dead Sea Scrolls in about a week? Reid was in poll trouble before his comments hit the airways and he's still be in trouble in a week. Nothing changed.

This is a story that has no legs. And why? Because the people who have a reason to be insulted, aren't insulted. [Sorry to poster who claims blacks are insulted, but can't seem to cite any sources]

The very fact that SCOTT BROWN is running this way in liberal Massachusetts has given Obama a black eye.

It's pretty bad.

First, Obama gets slammed on being exposed as soft on terrorism.

Then it comes out that Obama is planning on releasing 45 more terrorists to Yemen, and he had to forget about that.

Then the Harry Reid comments expose Obama on his complete hypocrisy on racial issues - basically that Obama only cares about race if it will help him politically personally, otherwise he doesn't care.

CASE IN POINT - WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO - SINCE BEING A STATE SENATOR, US SENATOR AND DURING THE PAST YEAR - WHAT HAS HE DONE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO - AND WHAT REALLY HAS HE DONE FOR RACE RELATIONS BESIDE GET REALLY VICIOUS AND INTIMIDATING ON RACE?

Now this week - Scott Brown has given Obama another black eye in liberal Massachusetts.

(Does Massachusetts have an "e" at the end, I'm not sure, please call martha coakley on that one)

The very fact that SCOTT BROWN is running this way in liberal Massachusetts has given Obama a black eye.

It's pretty bad.

First, Obama gets slammed on being exposed as soft on terrorism.

Then it comes out that Obama is planning on releasing 45 more terrorists to Yemen, and he had to forget about that.

Then the Harry Reid comments expose Obama on his complete hypocrisy on racial issues - basically that Obama only cares about race if it will help him politically personally, otherwise he doesn't care.

CASE IN POINT - WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO - SINCE BEING A STATE SENATOR, US SENATOR AND DURING THE PAST YEAR - WHAT HAS HE DONE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO - AND WHAT REALLY HAS HE DONE FOR RACE RELATIONS BESIDE GET REALLY VICIOUS AND INTIMIDATING ON RACE?

Now this week - Scott Brown has given Obama another black eye in liberal Massachusetts.

(Does Massachusetts have an "e" at the end, I'm not sure, please call martha coakley on that one)

Just stick to your talking points and don't think. You seem pretty good at it.

Try not starting your post with racist comments like "whiter than white" if you don't want criticism sherlock. I know your masters tell you racism against whites isn't racism but guess what; reality and liberal ideals are at odds.

Come on, Massachusetts, vote the Hypocrats out of office. If you don't, none of us will need healthcare, because the Hypocrats are planning to tax us to death!!! Make history, Massachusetts! Send the Hypocrats a message: We're not going to take it anymore!

mark-in-austin, I agree with you about name calling. But to defend a man who mischaracterizes information and then contradicts his own assertion, I have a hard time believing that JakeD has any core convictions. He just enjoys sparring and winning an argument even if it means insulting the opponents intelligence. That in fact does not lead to a fondness for him. People are only human and when JakeD insults them it is no less an insult because it is subtle.

I respect you and your opinion but on this one I have to say that you are thinking like a lawyer. Like JakeD, you must remember that this is not court.

He is a good debater but as a human being, he elicits contempt. That is his choice. You do not make a similar choice. I really do not think he is worthy of your defense.

Seriously, are people arguing with jaked about Trent Lott? It's jaked. OF COURSE he supports segregation. He supports evert racist policy there is. Why do you think he inundates the board with his birth certificate nonsense or constantly jokes about Obama's assassination?

I would have engaged with you but I have a rule that I don't engage with people who start out "classic liberal tactic" or some sort of generalization. What is the point? You've made up your mind about me, which is pretty amazing since you don't even know me. I only engage with people who are still open minded.

Just stick to your talking points and don't think. You seem pretty good at it.

Try not starting your post with racist comments like "whiter than white" if you don't want criticism sherlock. I know your masters tell you racism against whites isn't racism but guess what; reality and liberal ideals are at odds.

I would have engaged with you but I have a rule that I don't engage with people who start out "classic liberal tactic" or some sort of generalization. What is the point? You've made up your mind about me, which is pretty amazing since you don't even know me. I only engage with people who are still open minded.

It is fair for those who find fault with JakeD's assertions to counter them.

It is fair for those who think that his dislike of BHO is motivated by race to deconstruct his comments for bias.

It is fair for those who think JakeD's religious pronoucements are bizarre to critique his pronouncements.

But too often the replies to him are juvenile name calling and assertions that he is a youth, or worse. He really is a retired and now inactive lawyer, Stanford '61.
He used to post under his actual name.

Margaret, who is with TSA, can list terror attempts with
the best of them. When JakeD credits the good work of the FBI or NSA or CIA to Bush but not to Obama, she can cite it. When JakeD mentions the Christmas 2009 attempt we all recall the Christmas holiday attempt of 2001, Reid. When JakeD says the Ds hounded Lott, we can recall chapter and verse that Daschle came to Lott's defense and that Rs seeking to move up the chain of command savaged Lott.

I am not asking anyone who does not agree with JakeD's strongly asserted positions and inflammatory remarks to agree with them or to ignore them. I am respectfully requesting only that you rise above the temptation to preface every retort with Dan Ackroyd's ad hominem attack: "Jane, you ignorant sl-t".

No kidding? I would think Brown be declared the winner on the next day (20th). It would too insulting for the Mass dem officials to declare him the winner on the same day as the election. Let them save face.

Seriously, are people arguing with jaked about Trent Lott? It's jaked. OF COURSE he supports segregation. He supports evert racist policy there is. Why do you think he inundates the board with his birth certificate nonsense or constantly jokes about Obama's assassination?

East Coast red states are fine in places. The Research Triangle area of NC is fairly cosmopolitan and very livable. Charleston is a fantastic eating city. And I like ATL too (Athens is OK). But outside the major urban centers, there's a lot of poverty and high unemployment and it is more red-necky than here in Pennsyltucky.

SLC is fantastic -- especially if you like the outdoors.

Posted by: mnteng"

Yeah, I loved my time in Chapel Hill. Really pretty area, but not in the boondocks or anything. As for living outside metro areas, I'm not sure I would enjoy living in a rural area in any state whether it be Maryland or Georgia.

I don't expect the lib Mass folks to give away Teddy's (Mary Jo killer) seat just as they keep Kerry (traitor) in office, but it sure is fun to watch the dem libs scramble to preserve it. If it does go to Brown, wow.....end of Obama and one-termer assured.

The making of America began with The Boston Tea Party I ! The Boston Tea Party II will insure it continues as crafted by The Founding Fathers of America intended.NOT AS OBAMA INTENDS !Join us ! WE WILL NOT BE DENIED OUR FREEDOM ! ! ! Instead of Tea this time lets throw the RATS overboard ! ! ! BE A PART OF AMERICAN HISTORY SUPPORT * SCOTT BROWN * FOR SENATE * LET FREEDOM RING !*

JakeD:
You can parse Lott and Reid, word by word, but that's all bravo sierra. What is hypocritical is for whites to puff up their chests and claim to be *oh so offended*. All of this fake outrage is just WAY too transparent to be taken seriously.

I'm neither a Repub or Dem, but the Dems were calling for Trent Lott's resignation too. As I've pointed out (below) what he said was not as bad as what Harry Reid said. Regardless of which person the NAACP likes.

The very fact that SCOTT BROWN is running this way in liberal Massachusetts has given Obama a black eye.

It's pretty bad.

First, Obama gets slammed on being exposed as soft on terrorism.

Then it comes out that Obama is planning on releasing 45 more terrorists to Yemen, and he had to forget about that.

Then the Harry Reid comments expose Obama on his complete hypocrisy on racial issues - basically that Obama only cares about race if it will help him politically personally, otherwise he doesn't care.

CASE IN POINT - WHAT HAS OBAMA DONE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO - SINCE BEING A STATE SENATOR, US SENATOR AND DURING THE PAST YEAR - WHAT HAS HE DONE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF CHICAGO - AND WHAT REALLY HAS HE DONE FOR RACE RELATIONS BESIDE GET REALLY VICIOUS AND INTIMIDATING ON RACE?

Now this week - Scott Brown has given Obama another black eye in liberal Massachusetts.

(Does Massachusetts have an "e" at the end, I'm not sure, please call martha coakley on that one)

As to Lott, I've already said it was a poor choice of words which was twisted by some to give the impression that he embraced the discarded policies of the past. Bush (rightly) realized that he could not have someone PRODUCTIVE on his team with baggage like that, and since people were offended, better to drop him. Obama, not so much.

'Last week, RNC chair Michael Steele angered the Republican Party’s congressional leaders when he said that he does not think the GOP can win majorities in Congress in 2010 and that the Party is not ready to lead. “You really just have to get him to stop. It’s too much,” one top Republican congressional aide said. U.S. News reports today that instead of ousting Steele, they’re planning to just ignore him:

“He’s become our Howard Dean,” says a top Republican leadership aide. Steele’s latest remarks that the party won’t take control of the House in the November midterm elections — a prediction he later backed away from — have revived talk of replacing him. But senior party officials say they plan something worse: just ignoring Steele. “It’s going to be out of sight, out of mind,” says one aide. And firing him won’t work. “That would just expedite the talk show where he bashes us all the time,” he says.

Dating back to last March, Republicans have reportedly been unhappy with Steele’s leadership at the RNC, which has included a string of gaffes, ethics problems, relentless self-promotion, and poor fundraising.

However, one “influential” GOP strategist said that Steele was most likely going to stick around: “You’re not going to dump the first African-American chairman. That’s the only reason. Otherwise, he’d be gone.”

Okay lets clarify this terrorism thing in the Bush era. No Internatiional terrorist has hit on US soil since 9-11. The sniper, shoe bomber, etc etc are domestic criminals. Are they terrorist? One could argue such, but please all of you grow up and stop trying to spin everything to whatever suits your needs. This message is fore both sides.

Jake -- you are forgetting that guy at LAX who killed two ticket counter agents. The FBI called his crime that of a terrorist. You are also forgetting a long line of terrorists and groups that got almost as far as Undiebomber (who didn't get very far). There's Jose Padilla and his dirty bomb, the Fort Dix Six, the Portland Seven, The Lackawana Six, the guy with the Hudson River bomb Assen something, Mr. Reid the Shoe Bomber and the Virginia Jihad. Wait, I forgot about those guys that were arrested down in North Carolina -- weren't they going to flying school ,too?

I realize that you have modified your statement to make it as all-exclusive as possible, but it really doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Just another Right Wing fairy Tale.

captainkona, how brain dead can you be to say what you said! Is there any limit to the lunacy of you Republicans?
To be exact:
1- There has been NO Terrorist attack in US since Obama took office, unless you consider the Richard Reed incident during Bush admin to have been a Terrorist attack.

2- As a result of the unnecessary Iraq war Bush Admin has killed and maimed at least 50,000 Americans, that is 10 times the number that were killed in 9/11.

3- If the Republican lunatics and our Lying (right-wing) Media really gave a SQUAT about the American people, THEN they would be talking about the at least 50,000 Americans who were KILLED last year and will be KILLED this year due to being DENIED health care because they are ill and can not even buy health insurance due to a pre-existing condition, who would be living IF they were a citizen (or Permanent Resident) of a European country, Canada, Japan, Australia, and Israel the beloved country of right-wingers in US, whom all have Universal nationalized Health Care. You can read more about that here:http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090918
To be exact we are not even talking about here the 50Mill Americans who do not have health insurance, because the number
that die due to this issue is harder to come by, the 50,000 figure is the number of Americans who DIE each year because they
cannot even buy health insurance even if they wanted to due to US government allowing health insurance companies to DENY
people health insurance because they need health care (aka had a pre-existing condition).

Lott admitted that his "poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement." That's what I was referring to in my 7:36 PM post.

As for the accuracy of Lott's statement, it's impossible to imagine that America would be the same today if Thurmond had been elected President. Just as one example, there would have been no desegregation of the U.S. Army per Truman's Executive Order 9981. Lots of other advances by Truman would have been lost. On the other hand, maybe some of the mistakes by Truman would have been avoided. Who knows how Thurmond would have handled the Korean War (he might have even dropped nukes)? How would that have impacted the world?

Needless to say, even if everything in the Cold War abroad had turned out much the same, race relations here at home would have been dramatically different. At the very least, advances in terms of racial harmony would have been set back 4-8 years. Does Ike even run for the Presidency (and with no Ike, there's hardly a chance that Nixon, Ford, and Reagan get elected). It could have been ALL Democrats elected after Thurmond. Worse case scenario, however, either the Civil Rights Act doesn't even get passed with blacks further oppressed and/or the Second Civil War breaks out.

Again, note that I am not saying (and neither did Lott) that everything would have been "better" (which is the most common word I've seen on-line to describe what he said). He said we wouldn't have "all the same problems". You add that all up, and it is CLEAR that is exactly what would have happened with Thurmond being elected, again maybe different (or WORSE) problems but not the SAME problems.

"... we wouldn't have had all these problems ..." does not rule out different (or even WORSE) problems. At no time did Lott ever say "it would have been better for America to remain segregated" (which is what defenders of Reid today are trying to claim he said), and he specifically stated that he was NOT embracing that very discarded idea from the past.

If you have any questions about that or want the "full nine yards" defense (I've posted it repeatedly on prior threads), let me know.

jasperanselm:

I will not be apologizing to you or anyone else just because Bush has morals where Obama doesn't.

Since the new Mr. 37 (not the original 37, who left the blogosphere last year) brought up the Reid matter, we invite you to read an excellent article today by Fix coworker and Pulitzer Prize winner Eugene Robinson.

After reading Gene's piece, it's clear that Reid had nothing to apologize for: Harry was just giving a bluntly worded analysis of BHO's chances. Isn't it odd that the only folks bothered by Reid's comments are bigo-, er, ultraconservatives? BTW, Reid was one of BHO's earliest boosters, quietly supporting his challenge of HRC.

Excerpt:

"What I would find stunning is evidence that Reid's assessment -- made during the 2008 campaign and reported in a new book by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin -- was anything but accurate."

JakeD, Here are Trent Lott's exact remarks, as reported in the WaPo and elsewhere. If you think these remarks are defensible, then please defend them. But don't make them out to be anything but what they are. No spin; it's pretty clear what he means. [For you young folks: Thurmond had run on a racist, separatist "Dixiecrat" ticket that existed to prevent civil rights laws from passing]:

"Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

"Many of the white right wing comments I see posted here illustrate how many HS drop-outs haven't gotten their GED yet."
No,no,no...remember,demos don't believe in profiling. Did I hear the race card being pulled too?

That may explain why Dale Robertson, founder and president of the Tea Bag Party, misspelled his favorite racial slur on one of his signs. He thought the n-word ended in "ar" rather than "er." We understand the teabaggers are fully behind Brown. Kinda speaks for itself.

Lott lost his job for how people interpreted what he said not what he said. You are making debating points, JakeD and obfuscating the reality. Some would say that is misrepresentation. You would say I could get away with it in court. You are correct but that is why you are held in low regard by those who see through your smoke screen.

Koolcat is right they are equivalent and he is "more" right because the reality is Lott lost his job.

East Coast red states are fine in places. The Research Triangle area of NC is fairly cosmopolitan and very livable. Charleston is a fantastic eating city. And I like ATL too (Athens is OK). But outside the major urban centers, there's a lot of poverty and high unemployment and it is more red-necky than here in Pennsyltucky.

Coakley is 15 ahead according to a poll sponsored by the biggest newspaper in New England. But because of the usual outlier "poll" from Rasmuseen (totally discredited in a recent politico.com article) and similar agenda-driven "polls" and false Brown-is-gaining media narratives pushed by DrudgeWorld, Coakley is having to waste money on more ads for no good reason. Sad.

Remember these relentless too-close-to-call narratives here when the final votes totals come in and Coakley buries Brown by 7-18 points.

The comments here do not represent the majority of Massachusetts voters. AND they don't represent decent Americans either republican or democrat - or conservative or liberal. The people who will decide the outcome either way - would not make most of the remarks I see posted here. And while we're giving all of our attention to petty politics - here's something that Ted Kennedy would like us all to be reminded of -

According to UNICEF, 25000 children die each day due to poverty.

The Republicans would turn this around and say that we're fortunate America has only 45,000 dying each year without proper health care while those well off get premium service. God bless you Ted. This election will be our present to you.

We, as citizens and Sovereigns of the United States of America, cannot continue on the path We now find ourselves and remain a free People.

Constitution Party National Platform

We declare the platform of the Constitution Party to be predicated on the principles of
The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States and
The Bill of Rights

According to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, these founding documents are the foundation of our Liberty and the Supreme Law of the Land.

The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator. When Government grows beyond this scope, it is usurpation, and liberty is compromised.

We believe the major issues we face today are best solved by a renewed allegiance to the original intent of these founding documents.

Coakley is being exsposed to a harsh reality. More and more voters are recognizing neither party represents their interests. I am sick of rich politicians spending my money for their boondoggles. Coakley, I care a lot more about my kids future than yours. And I will do anything I can to prevent selfish politicians from heaping debt on my kids. Good luck, Coakley. There is plenty of room on the unemployment line.

""Logic" is the same, regardless of political persuasion. Changing what Trent Lott actually said into "better" is not logic, it's spin."

No jaked, it's called having a third-grader's command of the english language. Did the other poster put quotations remarks around what he reported Lott saying? If he did, then he was wrong. But if he didn't, then his post was fair.

"Odd - no report on Martha Coakley rushing to Washington DC to fundraise with lobbyists tonight. Coddling favor with the corrupt. I guess it is Ted Kennedy's seat after all, and not the voters of Massachusett(e)s.

Posted by: Cornell1984 | January 12, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse"

I'll bet Coakley's percentage of money raised in-state is much higher than Doug "Green Teeth" Hoffman during his failed bid in NY-23. You know, the idiot who brought Dick Armey to an interview with a local newspaper? The guy who thought that Sarah Palin's opinion was more important than the "parochial" interests of the people in the district he was trying to "represent"?

You need to read up on how politics is played these days, numbnutz. Your posts display an incredible amount of ignorance and naivete.

Sounds a lot like the NY 23 race, doesn't it? Poll comes out from PPP showing Hoffman 16 points ahead, blogs are flooded by childish rightwingers from Texas and South Carolina, Dick Armey's wingnuts send money, every sort of lie and wishful thought is shared by the rightwing media network. The Hoffman loses by four.

Massachusetts the same. I predict a 15 to 20 point blowout by Martha Coakley next Tuesday. I've heard that Scott Brown's campaign knows it's true.

Funny thing--Brown, the Republican in the race was a big supporter of the Massachusetts health care reform on which the federal law is based. Now he's flipflopping, dancing to the tune of his Republican masters.

Lifetime government dependence is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: leakin

That is enjoyed by way more republicans than admit it. I'll tell you what, when you decline your social security and medicare coverage, then you can make that statement. Until then, live the hypocrisy.

Massachusetts voters need to Make History and vote the Democrat out! Please vote
this Kennedy Dynasty candidate out, and
make history. The rest of the country needs you to do this not just for Massachusetts well-being but for the rest of the country.

The Carolinas are really nice as well as places like Atlanta and Athens in Georgia. Was at the Smokey Mountains in Tennessee last year which is really nice. The stereotypical cesspool areas like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana - the gulf coast red states. The midwest ones just seem real nondescript to me. Although I hear Salt Lake City is really nice.

Odd - no report on Martha Coakley rushing to Washington DC to fundraise with lobbyists tonight. Coddling favor with the corrupt. I guess it is Ted Kennedy's seat after all, and not the voters of Massachusett(e)s.

"Lifetime government dependence is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party."

That would explain all those RED states that are dependent on massive handouts from the Federal government, eh numbnutz? To think that anyone with a brain would be jealous of those welfare cesspools is hilarious.

"Funny thing is that people actually like Texas. I lived in Houston for a short while. In New Orleans now. Two of the reddest states. Almost every I know who has been to Austin loves it there. Same with Alaska. People of all stripes go to visit that beautiful state. Just because Sarah Palin hails from there doesn't mean it's a bad place. Same with Texas. I despise Bush, but not the entire state.

What's funny, of course, is that Chicago and SF are two of the greatest, most popular cities in the world. Similarly, Massachusetts has a standard of living far higher than that in most of the red states, which are basically cesspools (Alaska and Texas being two of the exceptions, ironically).

Harry Reid argued that Obama would have an easier time getting elected because candidates with light skin who speak standard English don't suffer the same electoral disadvantages as other minority candidates. (Note that this statement is true.)

Trent Lott argued that the nation would have been better off had we elected Strom Thurmond president -- a man whose central platform was segregation and hatred for blacks.

Can you Republicans really not tell the difference between those two statements? You really don't think there's a difference between *observing* that people are prejudiced and *wanting* them to be prejudiced?

Leapin. You seem to have inadvertanly stepped in something. Please try to wipe it off before you track it around inside the house.
As you must see it has already begun to stink the place up.
Posted by: Moonbat
------------------------------------------
It’s just a reaction to Scott Brown, win or lose, making an impact in the “Cradle of Statism”.

""I’m making a point as to how liberals aren't just content to hate politicians like Palin and Bush. They have to hate the places they are from like Alaska and Texas."

Typical rightwingnut response: Mindless mimicry.

Posted by: koolkat_1960"

Funny thing is that people actually like Texas. I lived in Houston for a short while. In New Orleans now. Two of the reddest states. Almost every I know who has been to Austin loves it there. Same with Alaska. People of all stripes go to visit that beautiful state. Just because Sarah Palin hails from there doesn't mean it's a bad place. Same with Texas. I despise Bush, but not the entire state.

Not really, numbnutz. Biden has always had foot-in-mouth disease. He didn't act like a nervous 14-year-old kid going to his first middle school dance like Palin apparently did.

By the way, let's not forget Palin's debate style: Ignore the questions and regurgitate her canned spew. If that's not the sign of someone who knows she's not up to the challenge, I don't know what is.

"DDAWD, not only is "Taxachusetts" not funny, it's not accurate. MA has below-average state income tax as a percent of income. Tax revenue per capita is high in MA because of high average income, not high tax rates.

MA also ranks very highly in every possible rating of quality of life: High standard of living, high level of education, etc. But the Republicans still bash us. They can't even stop insulting MA when they're trying to win an election here.

Posted by: Blarg"

Yeah, I made a point last night as to how conservatives aren't just content to hate politicians like Kennedy, Pelosi, and Obama. They have to hate the places they are from like Massachusetts, California, and Chicago. (not sure who they hate in New York)

DDAWD, not only is "Taxachusetts" not funny, it's not accurate. MA has below-average state income tax as a percent of income. Tax revenue per capita is high in MA because of high average income, not high tax rates.

MA also ranks very highly in every possible rating of quality of life: High standard of living, high level of education, etc. But the Republicans still bash us. They can't even stop insulting MA when they're trying to win an election here.

what I enjoy is the conservative red state, which always have a hand out for a hand out.
While Mass. pays more in taxes to the fed than it gets back, Texas makes a profit at the public trough.
Pigs
Posted by: tru-indy
---------------------------------------
State envy. A nice companion for class envy. All the financially challenged liberal run states are jealous. “Green” (pc word) with envy.

"drindl -- that story has the whiff of truth to it, because that is EXACTLY how you'd expect any run-of-the-mill dimwitted American to react when thrust into such a situation.

An experienced, smart, savvy pol wouldn't act like that, and neither would someone who is truly insane. They'd be perfectly calm. Palin is neither -- she's just mediocre at best. She's Joe the Plumber with an updo.

Posted by: koolkat_1960"

If that was her experience running for VEEP, I can't imagine her running for the top job. It must have been miserable for her and would only be worse.

An experienced, smart, savvy pol wouldn't act like that, and neither would someone who is truly insane. They'd be perfectly calm. Palin is neither -- she's just mediocre at best. She's Joe the Plumber with an updo.

LOL!!! Steve Schmidt's team barely feeds her (a few small bites of steak a day, no more) or gives her something to drink (maybe half a can of Diet Doctor Pepper, no water, ever), subjects her to sleep deprivation (not much more than a couple of hours a night, max) AND THEN COMPLAINS when she shuts down -- chin on her chest, arms folded, eyes cast to the floor, speechless and motionless -- lost in what those who were supposed to be helping her describe as a kind of catatonic stupor?!

drindl -- that story has the whiff of truth to it, because that is EXACTLY how you'd expect any run-of-the-mill dimwitted American to react when thrust into such a situation.

An experienced, smart, savvy pol wouldn't act like that, and neither would someone who is truly insane. They'd be perfectly calm. Palin is neither -- she's just mediocre at best. She's Joe the Plumber with an updo.

Now that the Dems are actually paying attention to this race rather than taking it for granted, they'll hold onto the seat. There just aren't enough votes for a guy like Brown to get in a state like Taxachusetts. But it is interesting that Brown and his funding surrogates are making the defeat of the healthcare bill a major plank in their platform. Voters in Mass know this, and if the election results turn out to be close, that might indeed say something tangible about the unpopularity of ObamaCare even in New England. Unlike the NJ and VA governor's races, there really won't be any legitimate way for Dems to spin a disappointing result to the ever convenient 'local issues' excuse. The Mass race is a 'national issues' race first and last, no way around it.

I was thinking of watching Palin's show with a beer in hand and taking a drink every time she lies or says something stupid. Should be pretty ripped by the end of the show.

Kind of like how we used to watch Pee-Wee's Saturday morning show back in college.

You can't possibly take her seriously.

Posted by: jasperanselm
--------------------------------------
Do the same with Scary Reid, Nanny State Pelosi or the lsn Obama. You will be in the drunk tank in no time at all. Government programs will help you on the road to recovery.

What Lott said was offensive and untrue. What Reid said was true and I do not think was offensive. We would have no way of knowing whether it was offensive or not because the only ones complaining about it are offensive also.

Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been savaged in a new book about the inside story behind the 2008 election campaign.

The book, Game Change, describes the former Governor of Alaska as having wild mood swings caused by her sudden rise to fame and describes her at one point as being in a 'catatonic stupor'.

Palin's behaviour was so erratic that at one point senior figures in the McCain campaign began to seriously discuss the possibility that she was mentally unstable.

The embarrassing claims come as it was revealed that Palin is set to take her conservative message to the right wing US cable news channel Fox.

The book recounts one episode on the night of August 31, 2008, when Ms Palin arrived in St Paul, Minnesota, for the Republican convention to a barrage of questions from the media.

According to the book, it was then that Steve Schmidt, Republican campaign chief, turned to the experts he had recruited and said: 'You guys have a lot of work to do. She doesn't know anything.'

Ms Palin was sat down at a table with a map of the world before her and given a potted history of foreign policy.

Over the next few weeks she 'crammed furiously', using index cards for prompts.

However, according to the book, the vice presidential candidate's mental state began to falter.

'She wasn't eating (a few small bites of steak a day, no more). She wasn't drinking (maybe half a can of Diet Doctor Pepper, no water, ever). She wasn't sleeping (not much more than a couple of hours a night, max),' the authors write.

While being drilled for upcoming interviews, 'she would routinely shut down - chin on her chest, arms folded, eyes cast to the floor, speechless and motionless, lost in what those around her described as a kind of catatonic stupor'.

Ensign said yesterday that "we need to get away from this politics of gotcha," and that "I don't think there's a person walking, certainly not a politician out there, that hasn't made comments they regret."

Sen. Coburn, for his part, also said that "Washington plays a game of gotcha."

He continued:

It pains me that Republicans are saying Harry Reid ought to step down. When you point a finger, you have four fingers pointing back at you. There is not anybody in Washington who has not said something that could be judged inappropriate and wrong.

Posted by: drindl
-------------------------------------------
More weak RINOS. History shows that the liberal statists never, and I repeat, never, give in until an R accused of impropriety is forced to leave office.

cornell1984: "I think it is great when Chris is exposed as a left-winger when he labels the republican groups as "conservative" but cannot bring himself to call the radical extremists of the SEIU "liberals"."

More proof that Cornell is correctly viewed as by far the weakest of the Ivies.

Ensign and Coburn are being consistent -- they defended Lott at the time too -- the difference being now, of course, that Lott was forced to step down even though what he said was no worse than what Reid said. I posted plenty of quotes yesterday from Dem Sentators who wanted Lott to resign or be censured. THEY made this bed, so they have to sleep in it.

Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) have both broken with many other GOPers and spoken out in defense of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Following Sen. Reid's racial remarks about then-Sen. Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign, a number of Republicans have called for his resignation from the Senate.

Now, some GOP senators are speaking out in support of Reid.

Ensign said yesterday that "we need to get away from this politics of gotcha," and that "I don't think there's a person walking, certainly not a politician out there, that hasn't made comments they regret."

Sen. Coburn, for his part, also said that "Washington plays a game of gotcha."

He continued:

It pains me that Republicans are saying Harry Reid ought to step down. When you point a finger, you have four fingers pointing back at you. There is not anybody in Washington who has not said something that could be judged inappropriate and wrong.

'If Democrats were to lose the special election next week to fill Ted Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts, it would set up a predicament for House Democrats. The loss would deprive Senate Democrats of the 60th vote they need to get a compromise health care reform bill through that chamber. But it wouldn't necessarily spell the death of health care reform. Remember: the Senate already passed its version of the bill so there's no technical impediment to the House simply passing the existing Senate version and Obama signing it into law. Voila! We have health care reform.'

"Republicans, already deeply unhappy about the health care bill, would almost certainly cry foul and Democrats -- including embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) -- might not be willing to go down such a partisan road in an election year."

You must be kidding. This is exactly what Democrats want -- for their elected reps to finally stand up to the bully tactics of Republicans and get this legislation accomplished the way Republicans do -- whatever it takes.

For Rs to even talk about 'bipartisanship' after the bad faith they have exhibited is an unfunny joke.